I think more public betas are a good idea. It's not like they're compulsory to install, but a beta could patch an issue which someone finds insufferable such as the halting bug - although that never bothered me much.

I think public betas are the way to go. even with a dedicated testing team, it is easy for testers to miss a significant bug. I know a public beta takes more time, but I think it pays off in a more stable final patch.

But it needs to be clear that it's a Beta, so folks that have limited download capability or that don't care for 'interim' patches don't mistakenly download it.

And it does need to go to an official patch at some point. Public Betas should not stay beta for an indefinite time. Replace them with another beta, or an official patch.

I like public betas, I think they make for better end game products....

The biggest issue I have ever seen is the way players treat posts about the game...as long as people keep there comments in perspective and don't make a developer regret doing beta's...

With that said having either some semblance of regular updates and points where the product is considered stable is a must as someone else pointed out...though I wonder also if a subscription based model would work? Guess it depends on how much more development and how regular it would be...

Yes I have considered a subscription model. But to be honest for it to effective we would have to have at least one other programmer working on this full time. Even if that was a relatively junior programmer we would still need around $100K pa to cover their salaries, insurances, hardware, software, accomodation and other overheads. Surprise, surprise, I would also like to get paid. While I can get a lot more doing Defence work, let's say for this exercise I also get $100K. Then that makes a total of $200K and we haven't made any profit, nor paid for any other contributions like royalties to data content developers, nor given the publisher a share. So let's say the total required pa is $300K. To achieve that amount pa we would then need:

@$50 pa = 6,000 subs

@$100 pa = 3,000 subs

@$150 pa = 2,000 subs

@$300 pa = 1,000 subs

Forget the 6,000 subs that is just not going to happen. The number of users is just not that big assuming they all signed up. But the $50 price is probably what the users are prepared to pay. I also doubt we would get 3000 subs at $100 and I reckon $150 is too much. So it's not looking that good is it?

Well, I'd pay $150 PA, if I thought it would inject some speed into the development process. Maybe poll about that. How many people would pay a $150pa subscription?

Public beta? I think the reason you might get disappointed posts is more to do with the length of time between each patch, than how we lable the patch when it arrives. We were clamouring for a public beta because we were waiting for a long time and would have to wait even longer (I wonder how much longer - a month, 2 months?) if it was to be a 'final', in order to have certain things changed. The final patches are never 'final' in that sense anyway, I assume, since we've had final patches before and here we were waiting for another (so might as well have a public beta, I, for one, thought). I'm guessing you would have a similar crop of issues raised about a 'final' patch. Maybe different issues. But there might always be 'issues' since you're always trying to better the product and you invite people to contribute to that process. Plus, there are people out there who think, rightly or worngly, that when you spend money on something it should 'work' and different people have different opinions about what that means for a game. So - assuming everyone understands the open-ended nature of the development - then maybe a subscription process really would be good, as it would address, I assume, the relatively slow speed of development which is down to the size of the team and the size of the task. So why not poll to see how much you could raise? I don't know the publishing numbers. Are they over 2,000?

I wont pay a subscription for any game...no chance. Sorry I know this post is old but just read it. I have enough problems managing my monthly money as it is without more being taken away esp now with whats happening in the UK.

I always tell my daughter when she asks for a game with a subscription policy that I wouldn't do it for myself even if it was the best game in the world and had everything I want.

Besides that what re the benefits to the customer to hand over what really is nearly three games worth of money every year? Plus I imagine if development was still slow and you weren't knocking out at least one game a year for that amount of money and exp packs they'd be no end of complaints.

I'm happy to wait until things are done then decide whether I want to buy when it hits the store.

I'm happy with subscription payment models (look, ~£10 per month is pretty awesome value for money when compared to any other hobby), but for my money I expect an MMO environment and monthly serious content updates. There's a reason the online games industry is realigning from monthly subscriptions to free-to-play and that's because unless you are World of Warcraft or EVE Online you can't justify the cost you are asking.

Just put the bloody game up on Steam already with a hefty price drop. Unity of Command's already paved the way to show that a wargame can make a lot of money from the mainstream market so long as it's pitched at the right price.

I'm happy with subscription payment models (look, ~£10 per month is pretty awesome value for money when compared to any other hobby), but for my money I expect an MMO environment and monthly serious content updates. There's a reason the online games industry is realigning from monthly subscriptions to free-to-play and that's because unless you are World of Warcraft or EVE Online you can't justify the cost you are asking.

Just put the bloody game up on Steam already with a hefty price drop. Unity of Command's already paved the way to show that a wargame can make a lot of money from the mainstream market so long as it's pitched at the right price.

Isn't going to happen...Panther have a deal with Slitherine group...Slitherine are unlikely to go to Steam..the only games who do are the ones that haven't signed exclusivity with Slitherine Group. Panther I presume have signed exclusivity so they are tied to Slitherine.

Also even though games seem to be proving otherwise Slitherine group don't buy into sell cheap get more custom make more money.

Yesterday, in a little scenario I set up, I gave the on map boss a single order (to hold a VP location). I ticked attack and ambush, allowed normal rest, then let it run to the end without giving a single new order. It was amazing to watch. There were about 4 Bns under the boss and he installed them all beautifully around the VP site. The scenario lasted 2 days. During that time he organised, without my help, crucial arty barrages and 2 really interesting flank attacks where he peeled off 2 Bns and sent them along the side and rear of the attacking enemy force. I didn't touch a thing. What other game do you have AI that can do that? Of course, normally you wish to be involved, but the point is that you need the friendly AI to be capable of doing these amazing things if you want to have the experienec of 'command' (instead of a click-fest of micromanagement) that this game promises.

I keep saying it - no other game out there has these possibilities. At least, none I'm aware of.

ORIGINAL: wodin Isn't going to happen...Panther have a deal with Slitherine group...Slitherine are unlikely to go to Steam..the only games who do are the ones that haven't signed exclusivity with Slitherine Group. Panther I presume have signed exclusivity so they are tied to Slitherine.

Also even though games seem to be proving otherwise Slitherine group don't buy into sell cheap get more custom make more money.

Yeah, it just pains me to see the wargaming scene lock itself into this death spiral.